So we already know the designers can split civilizations, given the Dynasties of India DLC and the addition of Sicilians and Romans. So why not more splitting civs (in addition to new DLCs, of course!)? It would seem a lot easier than building civs from scratch.
The Italians could become the Genoese, which would allow for the addition of the Venetians. The Mongols could add the Timurids, the Vikings the Normans, and the Turks could divide into the Ottomans and the Seljuks. Obviously, the Goths could be divided into the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths.
Literally none of these should be split. The Italians are nothing like India. They aren’t one massive sub-continent with a ton of powers condensed into one civ. They represent all the Italian city states. Venetians aren’t needed at all compared to a lot of other areas. Timurids are Tatars. Sicilians are Normans. Turks are meant to represent both Ottomans and Seljuks at once, they don’t need to be split. And Goths definitely don’t need to be split either.
It’s not about European civs, it’s about overall splitting civs to dynasties that don’t make sense unlike Indians which were “split” into different ethnic groups.
I’m personally against splitting Chinese, Saracens and Persians into dynastic civs…At least have Chinese neighboring civs like Jurchens and Tibetans instead of Song, Yuan and Ming.
Civs are based on ethnic groups. Seljuks are the Turks in the Feudal and Castle Age, Ottomons are the Turks in the Imperial Age. Their bonuses reflect that.
No more Italian civs. Please for the love of god. Also again, ethnic grounds are how civs in AoE2 work.
The “Indians” split was because an area larger than half of Europe was covered by one civ, when there are vastly different cultures within the Indian sub-continent. Just look how different Hindustanis are from Dravidians, or Gurjaras from Bengalis.
Slavs.
We already have splitted civs from Slavs like Poles,Bohemians.But it’s obviously not enough,in my opinion,Slavs could still be splitted to Rus and Serbs.